7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Fluid Response Evaluation in Sepsis Hypotension and Shock : A Randomized Clinical Trial

      research-article
      , MD a , , , MD b , , MD c , , MD, MPH d , , PhD e , , MD f , , MD g , h , , MD i , , MD c , , MD f , , PsyD j , , MD k , , MD l , , MD m , , MD n , , MD j , o
      Chest
      American College of Chest Physicians
      dynamic fluid response measure, hemodynamics, resuscitation, sepsis, shock, CO, cardiac output, FR, fluid responsiveness, FRESH, fluid responsiveness evaluation in sepsis-associated hypotension, ITT, intent to treat, MACE, major adverse cardiac event, mITT, modified intent to treat, PLR, passive leg raise, qSOFA, quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment, RRT, renal replacement therapy, SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, SV, stroke volume

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Fluid and vasopressor management in septic shock remains controversial. In this randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy of dynamic measures (stroke volume change during passive leg raise) to guide resuscitation and improve patient outcome.

          Research Question

          Will resuscitation that is guided by dynamic assessments of fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock improve patient outcomes?

          Study Design and Methods

          We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial at 13 hospitals in the United States and United Kingdom. Patients presented to EDs with sepsis that was associated hypotension and anticipated ICU admission. Intervention arm patients were assessed for fluid responsiveness before clinically driven fluid bolus or increase in vasopressors occurred. The protocol included reassessment and therapy as indicated by the passive leg raise result. The control arm received usual care. The primary clinical outcome was positive fluid balance at 72 hours or ICU discharge, whichever occurred first.

          Results

          In modified intent-to-treat analysis that included 83 intervention and 41 usual care eligible patients, fluid balance at 72 hours or ICU discharge was significantly lower (−1.37 L favoring the intervention arm; 0.65 ± 2.85 L intervention arm vs 2.02 ± 3.44 L usual care arm; P = .021. Fewer patients required renal replacement therapy (5.1% vs 17.5%; P = .04) or mechanical ventilation (17.7% vs 34.1%; P = .04) in the intervention arm compared with usual care. In the all-randomized intent-to-treat population (102 intervention, 48 usual care), there were no significant differences in safety signals.

          Interpretation

          Physiologically informed fluid and vasopressor resuscitation with the use of the passive leg raise-induced stroke volume change to guide management of septic shock is safe and demonstrated lower net fluid balance and reductions in the risk of renal and respiratory failure. Dynamic assessments to guide fluid administration may improve outcomes for patients with septic shock compared with usual care.

          Clinical Trial Registration

          NCT02837731;

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).

          Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

            To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012".
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Early Goal-Directed Therapy in the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock

              Goal-directed therapy has been used for severe sepsis and septic shock in the intensive care unit. This approach involves adjustments of cardiac preload, afterload, and contractility to balance oxygen delivery with oxygen demand. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of early goal-directed therapy before admission to the intensive care unit. We randomly assigned patients who arrived at an urban emergency department with severe sepsis or septic shock to receive either six hours of early goal-directed therapy or standard therapy (as a control) before admission to the intensive care unit. Clinicians who subsequently assumed the care of the patients were blinded to the treatment assignment. In-hospital mortality (the primary efficacy outcome), end points with respect to resuscitation, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores were obtained serially for 72 hours and compared between the study groups. Of the 263 enrolled patients, 130 were randomly assigned to early goal-directed therapy and 133 to standard therapy; there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to base-line characteristics. In-hospital mortality was 30.5 percent in the group assigned to early goal-directed therapy, as compared with 46.5 percent in the group assigned to standard therapy (P = 0.009). During the interval from 7 to 72 hours, the patients assigned to early goal-directed therapy had a significantly higher mean (+/-SD) central venous oxygen saturation (70.4+/-10.7 percent vs. 65.3+/-11.4 percent), a lower lactate concentration (3.0+/-4.4 vs. 3.9+/-4.4 mmol per liter), a lower base deficit (2.0+/-6.6 vs. 5.1+/-6.7 mmol per liter), and a higher pH (7.40+/-0.12 vs. 7.36+/-0.12) than the patients assigned to standard therapy (P < or = 0.02 for all comparisons). During the same period, mean APACHE II scores were significantly lower, indicating less severe organ dysfunction, in the patients assigned to early goal-directed therapy than in those assigned to standard therapy (13.0+/-6.3 vs. 15.9+/-6.4, P < 0.001). Early goal-directed therapy provides significant benefits with respect to outcome in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Chest
                Chest
                Chest
                American College of Chest Physicians
                0012-3692
                1931-3543
                27 April 2020
                October 2020
                27 April 2020
                : 158
                : 4
                : 1431-1445
                Affiliations
                [a ]Pulmonary Science and Critical Care Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center and University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO
                [b ]Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Ben Taub Hospital, Houston, TX
                [c ]Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI
                [d ]Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Ohio State University Hospital, Columbus, OH
                [e ]Intensive Care Medicine and Nephrology, University of Surrey & Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
                [f ]Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
                [g ]NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY
                [h ]Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Bridgeport Hospital, Bridgeport, CT
                [i ]Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR
                [j ]Cheetah Medical, Wilmington, DE
                [k ]Pulmonary, Critical Care Medicine and Allergy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
                [l ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
                [m ]Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, NY
                [n ]Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
                [o ]Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
                Author notes
                [] CORRESPONDENCE TO: Ivor S. Douglas, MD, Denver Health Medical Center 601 Broadway, MC 4000, Denver, CO 80204 ivor.douglas@ 123456dhha.org
                Article
                S0012-3692(20)30768-6
                10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.025
                9490557
                32353418
                e8e17738-41df-43e3-8cce-ba69dd12f916
                © 2020 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Critical Care: Original Research

                Respiratory medicine
                dynamic fluid response measure,hemodynamics,resuscitation,sepsis,shock,co, cardiac output,fr, fluid responsiveness,fresh, fluid responsiveness evaluation in sepsis-associated hypotension,itt, intent to treat,mace, major adverse cardiac event,mitt, modified intent to treat,plr, passive leg raise,qsofa, quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment,rrt, renal replacement therapy,sirs, systemic inflammatory response syndrome,sv, stroke volume

                Comments

                Comment on this article